Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The effective filing date of this application is acknowledged as 02/23/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 6, 2026, May 29, 2026, July 14, 2026, and July 16, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant amendments, filed April 23, 2026, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are put out under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, filed April 23, 2026, on Pages 9-11 and 13-14, with respect to the usage of Priev (US 20190051178 A1), previously of record, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, on Pages 11-12, with respect to the usage of Gettings (US 20150367513 A1), have been considered by the examiner, but are not persuasive. On Page 11, Applicant states that the Gettings does not teach to have sensors which are along a route provide alarm to robots, however, the sensors on robots or in the environment are used in a coordinated manner in a common region (Paragraph [0049], “The robots 20 can have sensors, such as described herein including cameras. The sensors on the robots 20 and/or positioned elsewhere in the environment 300 can, for example, be cameras capturing images of the ground of the environment (e.g., carpet, hard flooring such as tile, marble or hardwood, grass) under and near the robots.”). On Pages 11-12, Applicant states that Gettings lacks a critical alarm determination, however, Gettings does include such a determination (e.g., Paragraph [0038], “As shown in FIG. 4 a, a roaming sensor system can be interrupt driven such that task management can involve a priority engine 90. The priority engine 90 can be hardware including one or more processors in the system or can be digital logic distributed across multiple processors in the system and/or software executing processors containing custom digital logic and/or software distributed across one or more processors. The priority engine 90 can include one or more interrupt request (IR) signal inputs 95, an interrupt mask register 94, an interrupt request register 91, a priority resolver 92, an in-service register 93, and a controller 96. The controller 96 can instruct the robot to directly perform tasks. The interrupt mask register 94 can store a queue of tasks awaiting execution by the system or specific robot 20.” – an interrupt request constitutes a form of alarm, the priority threshold for pausing a current task in favor of an urgent task is the determination of a critical alarm, following by aborting a current task in favor of the critical task.). The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above, and are similarly unpersuasive for at least the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 25, 30, 37, 41, and 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder (US 20220250658 A1) , previously of record, further in view of Gettings (US 20150367513 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Blonder and Gettings respectively.
Regarding Claim 21,
Blonder discloses the following limitations,
A computer-implemented method of managing a robot fleet, the method comprising: obtaining features of a plurality of robot missions; (Paragraph [0167], “Optionally, the mission engine 230 splits the inspection mission to a plurality of sub-missions where each of the sub-missions is directed to acquire a respective one of a plurality of portions of the required inspection data. The mission engine 230 may compute mission parameters for each of the sub-missions” – where sub-missions are themselves missions, and computing their parameters thus obtains the features of a plurality of missions, and Paragraph [0167], “The mission engine 230 may compute operation instructions accordingly for each of the plurality of selected capable autonomous vehicles” - because the plurality of robots art of a collective robot management system, these robots are thus part of a robot fleet)
obtaining capabilities of a plurality of robots of the robot fleet; (Paragraph [0167], “The mission engine 230 may compute mission parameters for each of the sub-missions and may further select a plurality of capable autonomous vehicles 202 which are each identified, based on analysis of their operational parameters with respect to the mission parameters, as capable to carry out a respective one of the plurality of sub-missions” – where operational parameters are capabilities, and identifying such parameters is thus obtaining capabilities of a plurality of robots.)
selecting a robot among the plurality of robots to perform a selected robot mission among the plurality of robot missions based on the obtained capabilities of the selected robot and the obtained features of the selected robot mission (Paragraph [0167], “The mission engine 230 may compute mission parameters for each of the sub-missions and may further select a plurality of capable autonomous vehicles 202 which are each identified, based on analysis of their operational parameters with respect to the mission parameters, as capable to carry out a respective one of the plurality of sub-missions” -– where, in selecting a plurality of robot, the system selects a robot)
controlling the selected robot to perform the selected robot mission (Paragraph [0167], “The mission engine 230 may compute operation instructions accordingly for each of the plurality of selected capable autonomous vehicles 202 to operate the respective selected capable autonomous vehicle 202 to carry out its respective inspection mission” )
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot, receiving mission feedback for the selected robot mission from the selected robot (Paragraph [0172], “As shown at 116, which is an optional step, the mission engine 230 may initiate one or more additional inspection missions to acquire additional inspection data in case the acquired inspection data is incompliant, for example, partial, incomplete, insufficient, insufficiently accurate, under quality and/or the like.” – where, because Mission Engine 230 acts on inspection data, which constitutes mission feedback, the Mission Engine 230 receives the mission feedback via the connections shown in Figure 2.)
storing the received mission feedback to a database, (Figure 2, Element 224, Storage, where the storage is a memory associated with Mission Engine 230, Paragraph [0110], “For example, the processor(s) 222 may execute a mission engine 230” – where processors are coupled to a memory in a computer, and, are part of the Mission Management System 200, paragraph [0106], “The mission management system 200 may comprise a network interface 220 for connecting to a network 208, a processor(s) 222 for executing the process 100 and a storage 224 for code storage (program store) and/or data store.” – ergo, any data received by Mission Engine 230 is in fact data received by a computer, and thus, is stored in a database while being processed)
analyzing the received mission feedback (Paragraph [0172], “In particular, the analysis of the acquired inspection data may be done compared and/or with respect to the required inspection data as determined in step 104 to evaluate the compliance of the actually acquired inspection data with the computed required inspection data.” – where completing evaluation of the inspection data thus means the system will perform an analysis of feedback)
sending a result of the analysis to an operation management system (As noted by applicant in Paragraph [0181], “Operations management system 805 may include many systems and modules” – and where the Mission Engine 230 includes, but is not entirely defined by, an information analysis module, and, once an information analysis is complete, this result is used for further management of the system (Figure 1, step 116, step 104), the internal transmission of data from one part of Mission Engine 230 to another part of Mission Engine 230 constitutes sending the analysis result to an operation management system, where the aspects of Mission Engine 230 that carry out operations, create missions, may be understood as the operation management system, or, as an alternative interpretation, the entirety of Mission Management System 200 of Figure 2 can interpreted as the operation management system, and again, with the internal transfer of data to it from other parts within it.)
However, Blonder does not disclose the following limitation,
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot: receiving, from an external application, an alarm indicates an event occurring within an industrial facility and that is based on a fixed sensor in the industrial facility, the fixed sensor being at a location along a route of one of the plurality of robot missions
determining whether the alarm is a critical alarm; and upon determining the alarm is a critical alarm: generating, responsive to determining that the alarm is a critical alarm, a critical mission, for the alarm; and instructing, responsive to determining that the alarm Is a critical alarm: the selected robot to abort the selected robot mission and to perform the critical mission
However, this is taught by Gettings, which teaches that sensors can be placed around an industrial facility (Paragraph [0018], “FIG. 1 illustrates that a roaming sensor system 10 can be located in and operate in an environment 300, such as a building (as shown), campus of one or more indoor and outdoor areas, yard, transportation construct (e.g., road, bridge, tunnel, airport tarmac, train platform, seaport), or combinations thereof. The environment 300 can have exterior and interior walls 315a and 315b and doors 310. The environment 300 can have one or more sensors 12. The sensors 12 can be mounted and fixed to the ceilings, walls, floor, ground, windows, electrical outlets, data outlets (e.g., ethernet ports, wall-mounted audio ports), fixtures, movable objects/chattel (e.g., furniture, computers, appliances such as refrigerators, livestock), unmounted, unfixed, or combinations thereof.”) and that robots operate within the industrial environment in places alongside the location of those sensors (Paragraph [0037], “For example, alarm signal response can be actively started, radiation level monitoring can run constantly, and robot battery charging can be scheduled. For example, a security patrol robot can monitor carpet cleanliness (e.g. in a hotel or office building), wear patterns, unsafe conditions, and chemical leaks (e.g. in an industrial environment) while also monitoring for security threats.”). The data can be used for creating a critical alarm, which causes the operation of a critical mission, which temporarily pauses a mission in favor of a more important mission (Paragraph [0039], ‘Interrupt request signal inputs 95 can be logged in an interrupt request register 91, which can pass each IR to a priority resolver 92. A priority resolver 92 can rank each IR according to its pre-assigned priority score and pass the IRs to a controller 96 in order, e.g. starting with the highest-priority interrupt request (i.e., the IR with the highest score). Alternatively, a priority resolver 92 can assign priorities randomly or handle IRs in a first-in-last-out, last-in-first-out, or round robin prioritization scheme. An in-service register 93 can keep track of which IRs are currently being handled by the controller 96. An interrupt mask register 94 can keep track of which IRs are currently being masked, i.e. ignored, by a controller 96. For example, a priority resolver 92 handling three IRs, e.g. R-1, R-2, and R-3, can rank the IRs according to their pre-assigned priorities and pass the highest priority IR, e.g. R-2, to a controller 96. An in-service register 93 can keep track of the fact that the controller 96 is currently managing R-2, while an interrupt mask register 94 can keep track of the fact that the controller 96 is currently ignoring R-1 and R-3. Once the controller 96 has finished processing/servicing/handling R-2, the in-service register 93 can keep track of the fact that the controller is now managing R-1 and R-3, while an interrupt mask register 94 can keep track of the fact that the controller is now no longer ignoring any IRs.”). Task management is ultimately coordinated by a central server, (Paragraph [0037], “Task management can involve tasks that can be actively started by an operator or a server allocation system,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified Blonder with the industrial sensor and scheduling system of Gettings, as this industrial operation of robots is a pressing concern (Paragraph [0002], “There are a number of challenges in operating a robot in conjunction with humans and buildings/environments. When multiple robots are available, the challenges can multiply significantly. Thus, there is a need in the robotics field to create a new system for managing robots and their interactions with buildings/environments and humans.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 25,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 21, Blonder further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the data aggregation and analysis of the mission feedback includes one or more of processing photograph information, determining an instrument reading from photograph information, comparing a sensor reading to a prior or expected sensor reading, and performing statistical analysis on mission feedback, (Paragraph [0172], “In particular, the analysis of the acquired inspection data may be done compared and/or with respect to the required inspection data as determined in step 104 to evaluate the compliance of the actually acquired inspection data with the computed required inspection data.” – where required data constitutes expected sensor readings, Paragraph [0062], “The mission parameters may include, for example, one or more viewpoints for capturing inspection data, specifically sensory data depicting the inspected asset(s) and/or part thereof, one or more capture angles for capturing the sensory data, one or more resolutions for capturing the sensory data, one or more access paths to the inspected asset(s) and/or the like.” and the inspection data itself is sensor data, Paragraph [0066], “The inspection data acquired by the selected capable autonomous vehicle(s) may include sensory data captured by the sensor(s) of the selected capable autonomous vehicle(s),” - and thus, by performing a comparison of the acquired and expected data, data analysis is performed)
wherein data aggregation and analysis of the mission feedback is performed using machine learning or artificial intelligence analysis of mission feedback from prior robot missions or the analysis results of mission feedback from prior robot missions (Paragraph [0174], “Optionally, one or more ML models, for example, a neural network, an SVM and/or the like may be trained and learned to analyze the acquired inspection data to determine compliance, specifically, for quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability and/or the like of the acquired inspection data.”)
Regarding Claim 30,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. Blonder further discloses the following limitation,
wherein data aggregation and analysis of the mission feedback is performed using machine learning or artificial intelligence analysis of mission feedback from prior robot missions or the analysis results of mission feedback from prior robot missions (Paragraph [0174], “Optionally, one or more ML models, for example, a neural network, an SVM and/or the like may be trained and learned to analyze the acquired inspection data to determine compliance, specifically, for quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability and/or the like of the acquired inspection data.”)
Regarding Claim 37,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. Gettings further already teaches the following limitations,
the selected robot completes the selected robot mission from a point at which the selected robot mission was suspended (Paragraph [0039], “An in-service register 93 can keep track of the fact that the controller 96 is currently managing R-2, while an interrupt mask register 94 can keep track of the fact that the controller 96 is currently ignoring R-1 and R-3. Once the controller 96 has finished processing/servicing/handling R-2, the in-service register 93 can keep track of the fact that the controller is now managing R-1 and R-3, while an interrupt mask register 94 can keep track of the fact that the controller is now no longer ignoring any IRs.” – once a critical mission is completed, previously assigned tasks can be enacted.)
Regarding Claim 41,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. Gettings further already teaches the following limitations,
the selected robot performs the selected robot mission entirely upon completion of the conditional robot mission (Paragraph [0039], “Once the controller 96 has finished processing/servicing/handling R-2, the in-service register 93 can keep track of the fact that the controller is now managing R-1 and R-3, while an interrupt mask register 94 can keep track of the fact that the controller is now no longer ignoring any IRs.” – once a critical mission is completed, previously assigned tasks can be enacted.)
Regarding Claim 51,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. Gettings further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein instructing the selected robot to abort the selected robot mission and to perform the critical mission comprising transmitting, via one or more networks, control information to the selected robot., (Paragraph [0037], “Task management can involve tasks that can be actively started by an operator or a server allocation system,” Task management, including interrupt requests, is ultimately coordinated by a central server. See further, Paragraph [0038], “As shown in FIG. 4 a, a roaming sensor system can be interrupt driven such that task management can involve a priority engine 90.”).
Regarding Claim 52,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 51. Blonder further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the critical mission, for the alarm, includes a plurality of tasks (Paragraph [0032], “In an optional implementation form of the first, second and/or third aspects, the one or more processors are further configured for: Splitting the inspection mission to a plurality of sub-missions; Selecting a plurality of capable autonomous vehicles each capable to accomplish a respective one of the plurality of sub-missions; Computing operation instructions for each of the plurality of capable autonomous vehicles to carry out the respective sub-mission.” Sub-missions, or the operations of a given submission, constitute a plurality of tasks within a mission.)
Regarding Claim 53,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. Blonder further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the critical mission, for the alarm, includes a plurality of tasks (Paragraph [0032], “In an optional implementation form of the first, second and/or third aspects, the one or more processors are further configured for: Splitting the inspection mission to a plurality of sub-missions; Selecting a plurality of capable autonomous vehicles each capable to accomplish a respective one of the plurality of sub-missions; Computing operation instructions for each of the plurality of capable autonomous vehicles to carry out the respective sub-mission.” Sub-missions, or the operations of a given submission, constitute a plurality of tasks within a mission.)
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder and Gettings, further in view of Jannsen (WO 2013059513 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Jannsen.
Regarding Claim 33,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
further comprising: processing robot mission control information for the selected robot mission by a first robot interface, corresponding to a first robot type, prior to sending the robot mission control information for the selected robot to the selected robot
However, this is taught by Jannsen, which teaches the use of adapters for incoming and outgoing data (PDF Page 4, Lines 26-30, “the processor adapted to receive commands from the at least one client communication module, translate the received commands, and transmit the translated commands to the at least one robot communication module, wherein the communication between the common controller and the at least one client communication module is in a communication protocol foreign to the robot.” – where translation of data involves control and data adapters, see Figure 2 and Figure 3, where the Gateway module comprises a control adapter and a data adapter, PDF Page 13, Line 15-21, “In an embodiment where robot 12 and OCU 34 do not include compatible communication means, gateway module 200 can translate commands from OCU 34 into a format native to robot 12. Similarly, video or other data can be translated from robot 12 by gateway module 200 into a format that OCU 34 is capable of receiving. As a result, a common controller is created that enables unique and, in embodiments, proprietary language control over particular robots, and similarly receives unique data from differently-programmed robots.”) including a robot interface to transmit control data (Figures 2 and 3, Robot Communication Modules 102, 202, 202B, where these modules contain particular interfaces 108, 208, 204B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fleet control of Blonder with the data translation of Jannsen, as doing so increases the range of available robots that can be overseen by a single fleet system, and further, the combination can be performed using methods known to one of ordinary skill in the art, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 34,
The combination of Blonder, Gettings, and Jannsen, as shown, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 33. Jannsen further already teaches the following limitations,
processing the robot mission control information for the selected robot mission by a first robot control adapter corresponding to the first robot type configured to transform common robot mission control information to the robot mission control information (PDF Page 13, Line 15-21, “In an embodiment where robot 12 and OCU 34 do not include compatible communication means, gateway module 200 can translate commands from OCU 34 into a format native to robot 12. Similarly, video or other data can be translated from robot 12 by gateway module 200 into a format that OCU 34 is capable of receiving. As a result, a common controller is created that enables unique and, in embodiments, proprietary language control over particular robots, and similarly receives unique data from differently-programmed robots.”)
prior to processing the robot mission control information for the selected robot mission by the first robot interface (Figure 2, Figure 3, Robot Communication Modules 102, 202, 202B, where these modules contain particular interfaces for an associated robot, a la Robot Control radio 108, Robot Control radio 208, and Robot Control IR transceiver 204B)
Claims 42-43, and 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder and Gettings, further in view of Tan (US 20180001476 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Tan.
Regarding Claim 42,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot, selecting a second robot among the plurality of robots to perform the selected robot mission in cooperation with the selected robot based on the received mission feedback
wherein the selected robot provides a first capability not provided by the second robot, the second robot provides a second capability not provided by the selected robot, and both the first capability and the second capability are required to perform the selected robot mission
wherein neither the selected robot nor the second robot can perform all of the obtained features of the selected mission,
However, Tan teaches a method of robotic cooperation between robots with complementary abilities (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines have different capabilities or affordances relative to each other. The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone”), which can be used for the purpose of improving an inspection ability (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”), which can be dynamically assigned while a mission is already underway (Paragraph [0058], “The information received in the task completion notification may be used by the task manager to update the information provided in future command messages to robotic machines, such as the sequences of sub-tasks contained in the command messages. Upon receiving the task completion notification, the task manager may generate a new task for the same or different robotic machines.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection fleet of Blonder with the cooperative abilities as taught by Tan, as this improves the efficiency and overall ability of a robotic fleet (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone and/or the task can be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone but not in a timely or cost-effective manner relative to multiple robotic machines acting together to accomplish the assigned task.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 43,
The combination of Blonder, Gettings, and Tan, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 42. Tan further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein one of the selected robot or the second robot is configured to enable the other of the selected robot or the second robot to access a location of a step of the selected mission, and the other of the selected robot or the second robot is configured to perform the step (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”)
Regarding Claim 46,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot: determining, by the selected robot, a revised robot mission in addition to the plurality of robot missions, based on the received mission feedback;
selecting, by the selected robot, a second robot among the plurality of robots to perform the revised robot mission, in cooperation with the selected robot or in place of the selected robot, based on the received mission feedback; and
instructing, by the selected robot, the second robot to perform the revised robot mission, in cooperation with the selected robot or in place of the selected robot
However, Tan teaches a method of robotic cooperation between robots with complementary abilities (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines have different capabilities or affordances relative to each other. The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone”), which can be used for the purpose of improving an inspection ability (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location…”), which can be dynamically assigned while a mission is already underway (Paragraph [0058], “The information received in the task completion notification may be used by the task manager to update the information … Upon receiving the task completion notification, the task manager may generate a new task for the same or different robotic machines.”), where the robots may communicate laterally, i.e., the determination of revised mission data may be performed by a selected robot (Paragraph [0047], “For example, the robotic machines 301, 302 may transmit status-containing notification messages back and forth as the robotic machines 301, 302 collaborate to perform an assigned task in order to coordinate the actions of the robotic machines 301, 302 to perform the assigned task correctly and efficiently.”). Particularly, a selection of a second robot may occur when more than two robots are collaborating on an assigned task (Paragraph [0051], “Although not shown in the illustrated embodiment, the task manager may assign sub-tasks to more than two robotic machines in other embodiments. For example, some tasks may require three or more robotic machines working together to complete.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection fleet of Blonder with the cooperative abilities as taught by Tan, as this improves the efficiency and overall ability of a robotic fleet (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone and/or the task can be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone but not in a timely or cost-effective manner relative to multiple robotic machines acting together to accomplish the assigned task.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 47,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the received mission feedback includes information relating to an object along a route for accessing a location of a step in the selected robot mission, a position of the object preventing the selected robot from accessing the location via the route
However, this is taught by Tan, which teaches that robots may detect and navigate around obstructions (Paragraph [0028], “The aerial robotic machine 102 also may use the imaging device 150 to detect the presence of obstructions between the grasping robotic machine 101 and the target object 132.” where obstacles can be detected and avoided, and this feedback is handled by a mission planner)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection robots of Blonder with the autonomous obstacle avoidance as taught by Tan, as this feature is likely implicit in Blonder, and further, this enables a dynamic robotic system to handle an environment without human supervision (Paragraph [0019], “The first and second robotic machines 101, 102 perform various sub-tasks autonomously, without direct control and/or supervision of a human operator.”)
Regarding Claim 48,
The combination of Blonder and Gettings, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
during performance of the selected robot mission by the selected robot, selecting a second robot among the plurality of robots to perform the selected robot mission in cooperation with the selected robot based on the received mission feedback
wherein the selected robot provides a first capability not provided by the second robot, the second robot provides a second capability not provided by the selected robot, and both the first capability and the second capability are required to perform the selected robot mission
wherein neither the selected robot nor the second robot can perform all of the obtained features of the selected mission,
However, Tan teaches a method of robotic cooperation between robots with complementary abilities (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines have different capabilities or affordances relative to each other. The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone”), which can be used for the purpose of improving an inspection ability (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”), which can be dynamically assigned while a mission is already underway (Paragraph [0058], “The information received in the task completion notification may be used by the task manager to update the information provided in future command messages to robotic machines, such as the sequences of sub-tasks contained in the command messages. Upon receiving the task completion notification, the task manager may generate a new task for the same or different robotic machines.”), and where the robots may communicate laterally, i.e., the determination of revised mission data may be performed by a selected robot (Paragraph [0047], “For example, the robotic machines 301, 302 may transmit status-containing notification messages back and forth as the robotic machines 301, 302 collaborate to perform an assigned task in order to coordinate the actions of the robotic machines 301, 302 to perform the assigned task correctly and efficiently.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inspection fleet of Blonder with the cooperative abilities as taught by Tan, as this improves the efficiency and overall ability of a robotic fleet (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone and/or the task can be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone but not in a timely or cost-effective manner relative to multiple robotic machines acting together to accomplish the assigned task.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 49,
The combination of Blonder, Gettings, and Tan, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 48. Tan further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein one of the selected robot or the second robot is configured to enable the other of the selected robot or the second robot to access a location of a step of the selected mission, and the other of the selected robot or the second robot is configured to perform the step (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”)
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blonder, Gettings, and Tan, further in view of Jannsen.
Regarding Claim 27,
The combination of Blonder, Gettings, and Tan, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 42. Blonder further already teaches the following limitations,
receiving second mission feedback for the selected robot mission (Paragraph [0172], “As shown at 116, which is an optional step, the mission engine 230 may initiate one or more additional inspection missions to acquire additional inspection data in case the acquired inspection data is incompliant, for example, partial, incomplete, insufficient, insufficiently accurate, under quality and/or the like.” – and further, because the mission management of Blonder is dynamic and recursive, there is mission feedback and additional second mission feedback.)
Tan already teaches the following limitation,
a second analysis result of the mission feedback from the second robot (Paragraph [0047], “For example, the robotic machines 301, 302 may transmit status-containing notification messages back and forth as the robotic machines 301, 302 collaborate to perform an assigned task in order to coordinate the actions of the robotic machines 301, 302 to perform the assigned task correctly and efficiently.” Robots may communicate laterally, i.e., the determination of revised mission data may be performed by a selected robot).
However, the combination does not disclose the following limitation,
wherein the controlling the selected robot to perform the selected robot mission is performed by way of robot mission control information for the selected robot mission sent to the selected robot via a control adapter configured to transform common mission control information to robot mission control information
wherein the mission feedback for the selected robot mission … is received from the selected robot via a data adapter configured to transform mission feedback gathered by the selected robot to a common data format
However, this is taught by Jannsen (PDF Page 4, Lines 26-30, “the processor adapted to receive commands from the at least one client communication module, translate the received commands, and transmit the translated commands to the at least one robot communication module, wherein the communication between the common controller and the at least one client communication module is in a communication protocol foreign to the robot.” – where translation of data involves control and data adapters, see Figure 2 and Figure 3, where the Gateway module comprises a control adapter and a data adapter, PDF Page 13, Line 15-21, “In an embodiment where robot 12 and OCU 34 do not include compatible communication means, gateway module 200 can translate commands from OCU 34 into a format native to robot 12. Similarly, video or other data can be translated from robot 12 by gateway module 200 into a format that OCU 34 is capable of receiving. As a result, a common controller is created that enables unique and, in embodiments, proprietary language control over particular robots, and similarly receives unique data from differently-programmed robots.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fleet control of Blonder with the data translation of Jannsen, as doing so increases the range of available robots that can be overseen by a single fleet system, and further, the combination can be performed using methods known to one of ordinary skill in the art, yielding predictable results.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blonder, Gettings, and Tan, further in view of Cunningham (US 20210174086 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Cunningham.
Regarding Claim 44,
The combination of Blonder, Gettings, and Tan, as shown, discloses all the limitations of Claim 42. Tan further already discloses the following limitation,
wherein the selected robot provides a first capability not provided by the second robot, the second robot provides a second capability not provided by the selected robot, and both the first capability and the second capability are required to perform the selected robot mission, (Paragraph [0018], “The robotic machines have different capabilities or affordances relative to each other. The robotic machines are controlled to collaborate with each other to perform a given assigned task because the task cannot be completed by one of the robotic machines acting alone”)
and wherein the first capability it an ability to obtain an image … and the second capability is an ability to lift the selected robot to a height … (Paragraph [0080], “Optionally, the first robotic machine is configured to perform the first sequence of sub-tasks by lifting the second robotic machine from a starting location to a lifted location such that the second robotic machine in the lifted location is disposed more proximate to the target object of the vehicle than when the second robotic machine is in the starting location. Responsive to receiving a notification from the second robotic machine that at least one of manipulation or inspection of the target object is complete, the first robotic machine is configured to lower the second robotic machine back to the starting location.”),
However, the combination does not disclose the following limitation,
the first capability is an ability to obtain an image of a sensor,
lift a selected robot to a height of the sensor
However, this is taught by Cunningham, which teaches that a robot may take an image of a sensor (Abstract, “A mobile or wearable computing device comprises a camera, a processor coupled to the camera and configured with computer-executable instructions that cause the processor to activate the camera to capture an image and process the image so as to identify measurement data being displayed on an analog measurement instrument which is within the image captured by the camera” further in view of Paragraph [0029], “Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and drones can be equipped with a mobile device configured with an AMC application to perform image capture and associated processing. In some implementations, a UAV or drone can be equipped with an in-built camera and processor configured with an AMC application, dispensing with the need for a standalone mobile or wearable device.” – note that a UAV may achieve many different arbitrary heights to perform such a task)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saad (US 20160155339 A1), previously of record, discloses both protocol translation for transmission and reception (Paragraphs [0071-0073]), as well as health status reporting (Paragraph [0054]) and autonomous handling of mission data aboard each vehicle (Fig 3., Paragraph [0055]). Perko (US 20190019416 A1), previously of record, discloses a first robot requesting assistance so that another robot can enable first robot to perform a mission step (Paragraphs [0046], [0052]). Alattas ("Analyzing Modular Robotic Systems,"), previously of record, discloses that a modular robot can detect a failed sensor in itself and replace it. Foster (US 20170192431 A1) teaches a mission planning system which generates a second mission plan (Paragraph [0005]). YOGESHA (US 20210407303 A1), previously of record, teaches that a mission feedback can be collected data, control data, and environmental data, all used together (Paragraph [0060]). Larson (US 20200147793 A1), newly of record, discloses that a priority can be assigned to an overarching task containing subtasks (Paragraph [0027], “The criticality, or priority level, of the assigned task and/or sub-task in the sequence of operations to complete the assigned task can be determined.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop, can be reached at 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights